High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/7425/2016dismissed

Sarish Mittal & ORS v. Icici Bank & ANR

2016-08-22Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta,Mrs Justice Daya Chaudhary2 pages

-1CWP No.7425 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.7425 of 2016 Date of decision: 22.08.2016 Sh. Sarish Mittal and others ....Petitioners

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd. and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present: - Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vikas Suri, Advocate, for respondent No.1. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Petitioners have approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notices dated 07.01.2016, 11.01.2016, 16.01.2016 (Annexures P-7 to P-9) issued by respondent Bank under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 being in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mardia Chemical v. Union of India, 2004(4) SCC 311. On 14.07.2016 following order was passed: - "On 26.04.

2016, learned counsel for the petitioners had inter alia submitted that the petitioners would pay the amount without penal interest within eight months in equated monthly installments with interest on the reducing balance. The amount, which was due for regularization of petitioners' accounts, was stated to be `1.5 crores.

In such a situation in order to see the bonafides of the petitioners, it is deemed appropriate to direct the petitioners to bring a Ravinder Singh 2016.08.24 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document demand draft for an amount of `50,00,000/- (` Fifty lacs) in

-2CWP No.7425 of 2016 favour of the respondent-Bank on the next date of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

Adjourned to 22.08.2016.

It is clarified that in case, such draft is not produced on the date fixed, the writ petition shall be dismissed. It is further clarified that the amount of `50 lacs shall be subject to the decision of present writ petition without prejudice to the rights of the respondents."

The order dated 14.07.2016 has not been complied with. Dismissed.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (RAMENDRA JAIN) 22.08.2016 JUDGE R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Ravinder Singh 2016.08.24 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document